Wednesday, April 04, 2007
SF Ministerial roles announced
SF has divvied up its jobs - Catriona Ruane for Education, Conor Murphy for Regional Development, Michelle Gildernew for Agriculture and Gerry Kelly takes the Junior Ministry post in OFM/DFM. Margaret Ritchie has been confirmed as the SDLP’s nominee for Social Development. The Unionist parties are expected to announce later in the week.
Fair Deal @ 02:18 PM
Rather than focussing on the individual ministers, I would be keen for someone to tell me what progressive agenda SF intend to bring to these ministrys. Having voted for them in the hope that they would drive a leftist social agenda through the Executive and maximise All Ireland co-operation, I am in shock at the ministeries they have chosen. Jesus the biggest mistake this leadership have made, without doubt
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 07:44 AMgodsdog,
Good question.
All,
Can I just say that there has been a fair amount of rabbit punching going on on this thread. Anti SF animus is no more welcome here than anti Unionist or anti SDLP, or indeed anti Alliance animus is.
For all that I value these comments, and there is some genuinely insightful contributions here that add considerably to the value of the site, I am not interested in continuing it if it is to be used systematically to make personal attacks on public figures, or to be a scrapping ground for posters.
I completely welcome fulsome and agressive argument and/or questioning - even of our blogging team! But such argument has no value if it is entirely content free. I cannot (nor do I wish to) stop people propagandising on behalf of their own political interest/agenda. But I note that you do your own cause no good by refusing to address concrete political realities!
In this case, whatever about the alleged internal troubles within S Down SF, Ms Ruane is clearly popular with the only people who count in a democratic system: the voters!
Kindly deal with that, and move on!
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 09:28 AMMick: My fault - I started the thread by commenting that the SF team looked “formidable”. I didn’t anticipate the vitrol such a simple observation would unleash! I agree, about all of these things, move on and let’s build a better future, but keep a healthy eye on the past for lessons to be learned.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 09:40 AMCome on Pat
lighten up, whether we like it or not rumor mongering is the meat and drink of democratic politicians and your own party are no slouches at the game.Ms Fitz,
You may be right, but I still see the appointment by SF of two females to the top jobs as a progressive step, however, having said that it will be up to the women themselves to prove their worth.
Soupy
Thanks for your reply, it may be great fun watching the elbows of Mr Paisley and MMG come into play.
Regards to you all.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 10:10 AMIt’s not in the least your fault WS. But there is a culture here of people making statements without taking the time to back them up with examples/evidence. Sadly it often leads to barflyery of the worst type.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 11:25 AMI believe Pat Mc Larnon’s typical angry, ad hominem type post directed at me speaks volumes about him and the current thinking taking place within SF. His bitterness to anyone who sees things differently to him obviously led him to forget that this post is about “SF Ministerial roles”. It would seem that Pat Mc Larnon prefers to have an identifiable personality to criticise rather than ignore or address any points made.
SuperSoupy, like SF in general, you clearly believe your own nonsense. Don’t confuse what you think you know and believe with actual fact; you only succeed in making yourself sound ridiculous.
My post is certainly not motivated by “bitterness” as you embarrassingly and foolishly claim! You arrogance seems to suggest a view that if someone is not FOR SF then they must be AGAINST SF – not so. How do you know what I’m not in SD SF and posting on here to say what can’t be said amongst party ranks? Maybe I have strong, long-standing family connections with SD SF and actually know just as many, if not more people in the party in the area than you do? Fact is, you don’t know so your foul language and bad attitude only continues to embarrass you and anything you stand for…., keep it up!
” Being in the same count centre with them in Lisburn I saw the uncontainable joy of every SF member in that constituency…”
Given that only the candidate, their spouse/partner and one other person is able to attend the count, to suggest that there are only nine SF members in South Down really is stupid. Try to do us all a favour (and your blood pressure) by thinking before your vent your own angry, bitterness out on the keyboard.
Catriona Ruane made a point on several occasions during the run up to the election, both publicly and privately that it was not about “topping the poll” but rather “getting as many home”. The gleeful phone calls you speak of makes the party line out to be little more than spin and hype, cynical given to the electorate to chew on in the assumption that’s what they want to hear.
“She stuffed every contender. “
Not quite. Let’s not forget that, despite topping the poll, she failed to meet the quota and had to wait until the seventh count before being elected. Not really that impressive for our Minister in waiting eh? In Nationalist terms, South Down is a hung constituency in so far as it is split; both SF and SDLP having approximately 30% of the vote. There remains a very strong SDLP vote that the SF has been unable to crack and while the in-house doubts about Ruane’s pedigree remain, their “progress” will remain stagnant. Why the SDLP ran Michael Carr in Warrenpoint I’ll never know. Sitting MLA PJ Bradley has a long association with the town and has his constituency office there. It is not at all unthinkable that if he had been canvassing the whole of the south of the constituency, HE would have topped the poll AND comfortably made met the quota. However, that’s why “what ifs” and “what abouts” and who topped the poll doesn’t matter one jot.
Your “SF Director of Elections for SD” is either ignorant of the facts or telling you lies. I know this because I was at a house when she called with only one other person with her and NOBODY else around. Fact. Believe what you will, but if anyone with an open and objective mind talks to anyone in South Down (with the obvious exception of SF sycophants), they will hear what I have said being backed up.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 11:42 AMisidore (sic)
Ad hominen? A cursory glance at the facts re the performance of Ruane since her arrival in the constituency would deem you to be a liar. I simply point out the fact.
No person, no matter how talented can perform so well electorally campaigning on their own. These are basic facts that can be measured.
You prefer the nod and wink discussions that polluted (and discredited) this this in the run up to the elections.
In reply to SS you waffle about an SDLP vote in Sth Down that SF have been unable to crack. Quite simple either you are deluded or you are so twisted in your logic that you instead replace truth with lies.
A bit of advice, there is a link to the elections website that gives the results of past elections. Go and measure the performance of SF against the SDLP since Ruane arrived in the constituency. It will save you from looking even more stupid than you are now.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 12:39 PMChris,
What many of you consider “gaffes” and “mistakes” many within the Republican community were very happy with.Whether or not the Republican movement were happy with Gildernew making an ass off herself is irrelevant, the point is it gave no favours to the assumed intelligence of a senior Shinner.
Time will Tell,
Gildernew is far from safe in F/S/T with the total collapse of the UUP vote the DUP can capitaliseMefinks you need to actually look at which party increased its vote and which party fell by 3000 before you start talking through your ass…
Hmms I wonder what affect Ruane’s promotion will have on the Academic Selection debate?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 01:14 PMPat Mc Larnon
“A cursory glance at the facts re the performance of Ruane since her arrival in the constituency would deem you to be a liar. “
Wrong. Simply because that’s what you believe does not make it fact. Try again. Any rise in the SF can, in no way, be viewed as a direct indication of Miss Ruane’s personal vote. I would argue that it is a reflection of the growing party success SF is enjoying at the moment. The fact that she was parachuted in to the constituency AND did well backs up an argument that SF could have ran almost anybody and done just as well.
“No person, no matter how talented can perform so well electorally campaigning on their own.”
Wrong again. Any party can (and many do) develop a strong party following in a given area. Any candidate with a strong personal vote needs the weight of a professional party campaign behind them.
Face it, there are many people in SD, particularly in SD SF who do not like Miss Ruane (and that’s putting it mildly). It is an acknowledged tactic of SF to use party activists from any area to canvass. Even on the day of the election, it is not un usual to have a few local faces outside the polling station and people from the other end of the country inside, checking for personation transgressions. This is not a criticism. I think other parties would do well to do the same.
I think Catrina Ruane’s profile and credibility will struggle without the local support of South Down SF. If, as you seem to be suggesting, everything in the SD SF garden is rosy, I would be interested to know why she was not out canvassing with local people and who signed her nomination papers?
AD HOMINEM - ”You prefer the nod and wink discussions…”
AD HOMINEM - ”…you waffle about an SDLP vote in Sth Down…”
AD HOMINEM - ”…you instead replace truth with lies…”
AD HOMINEM - ”…It will save you from looking even more stupid than you are…”Why bother discussing the issues raised in the title eh Pat? Really, is this the best SF can come up with?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 01:31 PMFinally we’re getting down to some content. Just let the earlier adhominem ride and let’s have more facts?!?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 01:52 PM‘Wrong. Simply because that’s what you believe does not make it fact. Try again. Any rise in the SF can, in no way, be viewed as a direct indication of Miss Ruane’s personal vote. I would argue that it is a reflection of the growing party success SF is enjoying at the moment. The fact that she was parachuted in to the constituency AND did well backs up an argument that SF could have ran almost anybody and done just as well.’
Revisionism gone mad and so soon. It was only a few weeks ago we were told that the likes of Davy Hyland etc would do SF harm because of their strong personal vote.
Again look at the history of the SF vote in the area and the vte since she arrived.You are standing all logic on how to farm a constituency on its head. In order to get elected and stay elected people have to be seen and work on the ground, that way people vote for them, as they do in the case of Ruane.
‘Wrong again. Any party can (and many do) develop a strong party following in a given area. Any candidate with a strong personal vote needs the weight of a professional party campaign behind them.’
First of all nobody at all likes her and she canvasses virtually on her own. Now she has a strong personal vote and a professional party campaign. Please make up your mind.
‘Face it, there are many people in SD, particularly in SD SF who do not like Miss Ruane (and that’s putting it mildly). It is an acknowledged tactic of SF to use party activists from any area to canvass. Even on the day of the election, it is not un usual to have a few local faces outside the polling station and people from the other end of the country inside, checking for personation transgressions. This is not a criticism. I think other parties would do well to do the same.’
Nonsense as pointed out by people who actually live in the area the whole organisation is behind her.
‘I think Catrina Ruane’s profile and credibility will struggle without the local support of South Down SF. If, as you seem to be suggesting, everything in the SD SF garden is rosy, I would be interested to know why she was not out canvassing with local people and who signed her nomination papers?’
She will be a Minister for goodness sake how will her profile suffer. Her credibilty has been reinforced by the voters of Sth Down.
Since the demise of Donaldson we have had a few trolling on the subject of Sth Down. How the oganisation was n stood down and heavies from Sth Armagh ran the show. How there was discontent and a dislike for Ruane etc etc. Lo and behold what has happened the SF vote is now virtually neck and neck with the SDLP, in the last great bastion of SDLP power. No sign of discontent; no sign of the voters buying that tripe.
Do us all a favour, most of the real posters have an idea of how politics, especially constiuency politics work. On the subject of Ruane and SF in Sth Down it is clear that there is no discontent with her or the party in the area. The ‘much loved’ local candidate who is a source for many of these stories got a political kicking at the hands of the electorate. That’s the end, get over it.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 02:17 PMYet more ranting and squeeling from Pat. Well, I suppose everyone is good at something so stick to what you do best eh? It is nothing more than Shinner sycophancy running wild today.
“Any candidate with a strong personal vote needs the weight of a professional party campaign behind them.”
...means just that, ANY candidate. It does not suggest that she HAS a strong mandate. Precisely the opposite in fact, a strong personal vote in itself does not reflect or ensure political success.
“...most of the real posters...” Where did you come up with that line, The Daid Brent School of Blogging?
Bury your head if you like Pat. Believe all your own hype and talk shite if you like, but please, I ask you, don’t piss on my leg and then try to convince me it’s raining. Your opinions and beliefs do not equate to fact. For many people in South Down, Catriona Ruane is NOT liked. She made a fool of herself over the National Park issue, trying to tell a “NO TO THE PARK” group that she was with them in their campaign but actually argued for any National Park to be bigger than the one proposed! Not what the assembled people wanted to hear and they let her know it.
“how will her profile suffer”
If her ministerial duties take her away from the constituency and she does not have the support of the party locally (where her vote is) to act promntly and quickly, she will be punished. That’s how it works Pat.Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 03:10 PMDear TD Government ministers ( designate or otherwise) are not like the rest of us. They are sectarian bigots and notoriously dissembling power-hungry bastards who are likely to shit from on high on the ordinary people if they are not subjected to the the critical scrutiny that a democract permits within the bounds of the law. Give up your sentimental campaign of kid-gloving these gabshites.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 03:45 PMYeah Sean, maybe you should parachute Joe Bell and John Lowry into Stormont to run the show-or should that be to ‘run the book’ in that other great East Belfast institution, The Melting Pot
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 03:51 PMIsidore,
Just to correct you another error, each candidate is allowed to bring in their partner, electoral agent and several polling agents. SF had 3 candidates for South Down and had 15-20 people attending that count. All were utterly delighted with Catriona’s poll-topping performance and could not contain their glee.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 03:52 PMSS
Don’t feed trolls, Isidore is talking nonsense.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 03:58 PMThere’s no show without Punch is there? Pat Mc goes AWOL and along comes SS, coincidence?
To correct YOU, the Banbridge office can confirms that in the South Down constituency at least (i.e. at the Lisburn count, each candidate was allowed to be there, their partner, and their agent and one other. People don’t have to take my word for that, they can check with the office themselves if they wish. However, regardless of the few people who are allowed to be there, your comment remains just as ridiculous…
”Being in the same count centre with them in Lisburn I saw the uncontainable joy of every SF member in that constituency…”
If making yourself sound stupid, angry and bitter is of any concern to you, you should think before you attack the keyboard with your ranting…
As for Catriona’s “poll-topping performance”, read my previous post but may be you can explain why she couldn’t meet the quota? Why the SF vote management strategy didn’t work in South Down?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 04:17 PMisidore,
depending on which of your personalities is the dominant one at any given time Ruane has no support and campaigns on her own to she has a professional team behind her. Still trying to work that out.
Or everyone in the constituency hates her to many people don’t like her, which is it? Also, this is despite her having a strong personal vote, as you have conceded.
Chris is right about feeding trolls, personally it is good to give them a kicking now and again
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 06:02 PMSticky Wicket-what are you on? Sorry,what are you on about? I have never mentioned Messrs Bell and Lowry and I have no connection whatsoever with them. But I am sure they will love you for your unprovoked personal attack on them.
The only sense I can make of your comment is that your provincialised perception of things leads you to regard as a Stickie anyone called Sean who offers a leftist critique of the Paisleyite/Sinn Fein coalition of communal sectarians at Stormont.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 06:10 PM‘anyone called Sean who offers a leftist critique of the Paisleyite/Sinn Fein coalition of communal sectarians at Stormont.’
don’t sell yourself short , Sean.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 07:13 PMAnd then SS goes AWOL and back comes Pat Mc coincidence?
Pat,
Your posts are as irrational as your unquestioning support for SF is
bordering onobsessive.I suspect you are being disingenuous and are using that tried and tested SF ploy of issue avoidance in your SF propaganda type postings. Get the debate away from tricky issues for SF right? Here on Slugger, use dismissive statements (a ploy often used by none other than Gerry Kelly), using condescending and patronizing tones, feign anger and bitterness and, if all else fails, blame the Brits, securocrats, anti-agreement forces, the SDLP, the UUP, David Trimble, Paisleyites, loyalists or just about anybody but SF. Because SF s always right and everyone else is always wrong. That’s the sycophantic Shinner world isn’t it? You’re bitter rants only support this view.
”Ruane has no support and campaigns on her own to she has a professional team behind her. Still trying to work that out.”
Let me explain, as I am sure you’re not that stupid to follow this simple point, (though admittedly, I do not know for sure). You are wrong to infer that I suggested that Ruane has no support but you knew that right? The very clear point I made was to point out to those who are not familiar with the South Down constituency, that she is not liked, most notably by people within the South Down SF. I know this for a fact. She hasn’t been able to shake off the Donaldson dust since being parachuted in to the constituency. There is a clear difference. May be you actually are unable to see the difference as you see no problem in supporting the treasonous Irish Republicans. No support does NOT equate to NOT liked. Can you follow or are is that too difficult for you?
Much of the support Miss Ruane has in SD is bussed in from outside the constituency; certainly around election time. I raise this point not as a criticism but rather to question how her unpopularity amongst her own SD SF party will impact on her role as a minister. No doubt her workload will increase dramatically. She will need a few more pastel trouser suits and she will have to be seen to be working for all the people everywhere, not just South Down Republicans. No doubt she will be keen to let everyone see that this is just what she is doing but her local work will have to continue. A prompt, reliable and effective response to issues raised by the people who put her where she is, will be made much more difficult, given she does not have the full backing and support of SD SF.
Can you explain why she couldn’t meet the quota and why the SF vote management strategy didn’t work in South Down? And who did sign her nomination papers?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2007 @ 09:48 PMisidore,
cunningham loser, ruane stella winner. isidore liar, pat mc larnon teller of truths, easy enough, goodbye.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2007 @ 12:59 AMPat, you forgot one thing - “And Freddy was not a tout!” LOL
Posted by on Apr 06, 2007 @ 08:02 AMNot quite Pat, but you did forget one thing…
...who DID sign her nomination papers?
Posted by on Apr 06, 2007 @ 08:33 AM
